Pradeep Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the Opposite Parties to waive the royalty and additional charges during non-operational period of the Stone Quarry in question.

¶18

The Petitioner further prays for a direction for modification of the demand raised under Annexure-3 for the financial year 2022-23 and 23-24, adjusting the payment already made and exempting payment of additional charges.

¶19

The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction for issuance of transit permit to pay the demand raised under Annexure-2 for the financial year 2025-26 and also issue direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the extension of lease period till 2029.

¶20

Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.08.2022 for Kichivelly Stone Quarry at Malkangiri, the Petitioner made an application and was considered to be the successful bidder.

¶21

Accordingly, the lease deed was executed and registered on 09.05.2022 for a period of five years i.e. from 09.05.2022 till 08.05.2027 (Annexure-7).

¶22

The Petitioner thereafter proceeded to make the Stone Quarry operational. In that process, the Petitioner made an application for blasting permission on 01.11.2023, which was granted only on 10.06.2024.

¶23

It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate that before obtaining a blasting license/permission, the Petitioner could not have operated the Stone Quarry. When the matter stood thus, a show cause notice dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure-14) was issued for cancellation of the lease for alleged non-payment of royalty for the financial year 2023-24 i.e. Rs.1,65,97,689/- and Rs.92,91,219/- for the financial year 2024-25.

¶24

It was made clear in the said show cause notice that failure to comply with such notice would result in appropriate legal action as would deem necessary.

¶25

Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Petitioner submitted the reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure-14, but as yet no final decision has been communicated to the Petitioner. However, the authorities are contemplating to cancel the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner in respect of Kichivelly Stone Quarry.

¶26

It is submitted that when the Petitioner could not operate the lease for more than two years after execution of the lease deed for the reasons beyond his control, demand to pay royalty for the said non- operational period should be waived. If in the meantime the lease is cancelled, the Petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

¶27

The petitioner is not in a position to file appeal under rule46 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 as no final order has yet been communicated to it. Hence, the Petitioner

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

finding no other alternatives has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶30

Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the Petitioner has already submitted its reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing has been given, then final outcome of the said hearing would be communicated to the Petitioner. The apprehension of the Petitioner for cancellation of the lease or taking any other coercive action is without any basis as any coercive action would be subject to the final decision on the show cause notice itself.

¶31

In view of the submission made by Mr. Panda, learned AGA, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction that final result, if any taken on the basis of show cause notice and reply submitted by the Petitioner shall be communicated to him as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks hence.

¶32

Till the final decision is taken as aforesaid, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner with regard to cancellation of the lease.

¶33

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Apr-2025 15:18:01

(S.K. Mishra)

Judge

Banita

Page 3 of 3

Pradeep Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhakta Charan Parida Vs Reserve Bank of India, Bbsr

Sanjib Kumar Pradhan Vs Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., Vs Dist.Magistrate Cum Collector ,Khordha

Piyush Gupta Vs Bhubaneswar Development Authority, Bbsr

M/S Society for Environmental Protection and Human Resources Development, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Iswar Sahu Vs Utkal Grameen Bank, Bargarh